University of Kansas Hospital Authority v. Board of Commissioners
299 Kan. 942
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Hospital Authority sued the County for reimbursement of medical expenses for Contreras’ treatment after a four-story jump from the jail window.
- Contreras was temporarily detained in the county jail with an ICE detainer; the detainer did not function as a warrant.
- On April 5, 2006 Contreras was allowed into the courthouse, placed in a secure fingerprint room, and left alone briefly.
- Contreras used a chair to smash a window and jumped, injuring himself; he was not in jail custody at the time of injury.
- District court granted summary judgment for the County; Court of Appeals reversed, adopting a broader indicia-of-custody standard; the Supreme Court granted review to resolve statutory versus caselaw-based duty to pay.
- Legislation (K.S.A. 19-1910 and related provisions) and long-standing Kansas caselaw confront whether a county must pay for medical care of an indigent person not in jail at injury, and whether the legislature should resolve this policy question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 19-1910 require a county to pay for medical care when the patient is not a prisoner in jail at injury? | Hospital Authority relies on caselaw that broader custody duties apply. | 19-1910 limits payment duty to prisoners committed to or held in jail. | 19-1910 governs; county not obligated since Contreras was not a prisoner committed or held in jail. |
| Should the indicia-of-custody standard from Court of Appeals control, expanding custody beyond actual confinement? | Indicia-of-custody shows custody once restraint exists by law enforcement. | Statutory language controls; custody limited to jail detention. | Court rejects broader indicia test; adopts statutory interpretation of custody under 19-1910. |
| Is there a waiver of statutory or contract theories by Hospital Authority on appeal? | Waiver not explicitly addressed; statutory claims remain viable. | Hospital Authority waived statutory and contract theories by failing to brief them. | Waiver; statutory/contract theories deemed abandoned; only statutory interpretation relevant insofar as 19-1910 controls. |
| Does the quantum meruit claim succeed despite no duty to pay under statutes? | Equitable relief based on unjust enrichment. | No duty to pay; no direct benefit to County. | Quantum meruit denied; no unjust enrichment against County. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mt. Carmel Medical Center v. Board of County Commissioners, 1 Kan. App. 2d 374 (1977) (foundation for sheriff's duty to provide care at county expense when indigent)
- Wesley Med. Center v. City of Wichita, 237 Kan. 807 (1985) (duty to pay in certain custody situations; later statutory changes acknowledged)
- Allen Memorial Hosp. v. Board of Butler County Comm’rs, 12 Kan. App. 2d 680 (1988) (county liability for medical treatment under certain holding situations)
- Dodge City Med. Center v. Board of Gray County Comm’rs, 6 Kan. App. 2d 731 (1981) (prisoner medical care liability tied to custody and arrest context)
- Levier v. State, 209 Kan. 442 (1972) (recognition of duty to provide medical care from constitutional basis)
- Pfannenstiel v. Doerfler, 152 Kan. 479 (1940) (duty to treat prisoners with humanity; statutory lineage to 19-1919)
- Atchison County v. Tomlinson, 9 Kan. 167 (1872) (early recognition of sheriff’s duty to provide care)
- Roberts v. County of Pottawatomie, 10 Kan. 29 (1872) (statutory authorization required for county payment of care)
- Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U.S. 239 (1983) (distinction between duty to provide care and duty to pay for care)